Two years ago, Joel Friedman submitted a paper purporting to prove the Hanna Neumann Conjecture, which eventually turned out to contain a fatal bug and was withdrawn. Quite recently, Friedman repeated his attempt at proof with paper "Sheaves on Graphs and a Proof of the Hanna Neumann Conjecture": http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0129 . Has this attempt been verified by anyone or is still under review?

Questions on MathOverflow are expected to relate to research level mathematics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2

Is MO the right place for this kind of discussion?
–
Alain ValetteJun 3 '11 at 15:30

3

I don't think it is appropriate to discuss such things here, and I believe there was a meta discussion to that effect when people started posting questions about Deolalikar's paper.
–
Qiaochu YuanJun 3 '11 at 17:44

3

My motivation for asking this question is: a) this is not a "high profile" problem as RH, Collatz or P/NP, so unlikely to attract much attention on blogs etc. (= hard to know, for me, what the community thinks of it), b) the technology used in the proof seems quite nonstandard, maybe someone knowledgeable could e.g. put this in wider context, previous proof attempts, whether this has any heuristic chance of succeeding etc
–
Marcin KotowskiJun 3 '11 at 18:45

For those who is interested in the Hannah Neumann conjecture, both Friedman and Mineyev are going to participate in a Banff workshop birs.ca/events/2011/5-day-workshops/11w5141 in June, and Mineyev is going to participate in the AIM workshop aimath.org/ARCC/workshops/l2invfggroups.html in September. I am co-organizing the AIM workshop and Miklos Abert is co-organizing both. So if not by the end of June, then by the end of September, we will know at least if Mineyev's (shorter) proof is correct.
–
Mark SapirJun 6 '11 at 5:50